33
   

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

 
 
Builder
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 08:52 am
@Setanta,
The only sad case is that you will not open your eyes, Setanta.

What "case" would you like me to state? That I don't believe the official tale? That's not obvious to you? Would you prefer that I stoop to individual malice and name-calling?

Is that what you like in a debate?

Perhaps I'm not playing the game you want to play, Setanta?

I like your posts, and appreciate your input. I will not stoop to individual attacks simply because we disagree.

You've stated your case re the former admin, and their manipulation of fact and fantasy, and yet you feel obliged to defend them against percieved threats. Curious fantasy-based patriotism. Not sure if I should applaud you, or recommend you for committal.

Not my field of study. I will say that you are worthy of comment. That is all.
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 08:56 am
@Builder,
Quote:
Those who make extraordinary claims do have a burden of proof.


Indeed. So produce it already.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 08:59 am
@dlowan,
Ridiculous assumptions from the admin first, plzzz.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:00 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
Would you prefer that I stoop to individual malice and name-calling?


You've already been engaged in that. If you don't accept the obvious description of the event, what then do you allege did take place? It's a simple enough question. Why are you afraid to answer it?
Builder
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:08 am
@Setanta,
Quote:

You've already been engaged in that.


You'd need to show me exactly where I've engaged in that, Setanta.

Won't be the first time you've been wrong.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:28 am
@Builder,
So, you don't believe the official tale.

Then you should be able to tell us what part of that tale you don't believe.

1. Do you believe planes hit the 2 towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania?
2. If you believe 1, then do you believe the official story of who took over those planes?

Once you answer these questions we can move on to others.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:42 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
Quote:
You've already been engaged in that.


You'd need to show me exactly where I've engaged in that, Setanta.

Won't be the first time you've been wrong.


In your post #4733364 . . .

You wrote:
Hmmm, now I know what they mean by Shrill.

Get off your high horse and read some.


In your post #4733370 . . .

You wrote:
You know, I really enjoy your posts, Setanta.

Even these ones where the spittle is flying all over your keyboard.

Where you and I differ is, I don't take this personally.


In your post #4733478 . .

You wrote:
Those with more than two nickels to the dime are shaking their collective heads at the feeble excuse for an explanation, and you, in your smug little corner of insular correctness are demanding an explanation of what intelligent minds are proposing?

For once in your secluded self-protecting life, look outside of your bubble, and take a breath of the air around you. Suck it up.

It won't poison you. It might, in fact, be a joy to your lungs.


In your post #4733498 . .

You wrote:
You've stated your case re the former admin, and their manipulation of fact and fantasy, and yet you feel obliged to defend them against percieved threats. Curious fantasy-based patriotism. Not sure if I should applaud you, or recommend you for committal.


You've got the gall to claim that unlike me, you don't take this personally? Liar. Hypocrite.

By the way, at no time did i state a "case" about the former administration, nor make any comments about anyone manipulating fact and fantasy. Liar.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:44 am
@parados,
I don't believe that an airliner hit the pentagon.

I don't believe that the impact of an airliner crashing into either of the twin towers resulted in their demolition.

I don't believe that the destruction of building seven was anything other than deliberate demolition.

Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:49 am
@Setanta,
You were supposed to find a post where I was being derogatory and inflammatory. You've failed on both counts.






Re: Builder (Post 4733516)
Builder wrote:

Quote:

You've already been engaged in that.



You'd need to show me exactly where I've engaged in that, Setanta.

Won't be the first time you've been wrong.



In your post #4733364 . . .

You wrote:

Hmmm, now I know what they mean by Shrill.

Get off your high horse and read some.



In your post #4733370 . . .

You wrote:

You know, I really enjoy your posts, Setanta.

Even these ones where the spittle is flying all over your keyboard.

Where you and I differ is, I don't take this personally.



In your post #4733478 . .

You wrote:

Those with more than two nickels to the dime are shaking their collective heads at the feeble excuse for an explanation, and you, in your smug little corner of insular correctness are demanding an explanation of what intelligent minds are proposing?

For once in your secluded self-protecting life, look outside of your bubble, and take a breath of the air around you. Suck it up.

It won't poison you. It might, in fact, be a joy to your lungs.



In your post #4733498 . .

You wrote:

You've stated your case re the former admin, and their manipulation of fact and fantasy, and yet you feel obliged to defend them against percieved threats. Curious fantasy-based patriotism. Not sure if I should applaud you, or recommend you for committal.



You've got the gall to claim that unlike me, you don't take this personally? Liar. Hypocrite.

By the way, at no time did i state a "case" about the former administration, nor make any comments about anyone manipulating fact and fantasy. Liar.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:50 am
@Builder,
For it to NOT be an extraordinary claim that no airliner hit the Pentagon, you need to address the following:

1. Why did numerous eye witnesses see a plane go overhead at low altitude before the Pentagon was hit?
2. Why were plane parts found at the Pentagon including parts of a 757?
3. What happened to the airplane and the people on it if they did not hit the Pentagon.

When you can provide reasonable and ordinary explanations then you are not making an extraordinary claim.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 09:55 am
@Builder,
Oh no, i made my case in spades. You're obviously too dishonest to admit that your snide remarks, you sneering tone were intended to insult from the outset. I'm not surprised. You're not doing at all well here. I'll be interested to see how you deal with Parados. How long before you start sneering at him?
Builder
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 10:16 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Oh no, i made my case in spades. You're obviously too dishonest to admit that your snide remarks, you sneering tone were intended to insult from the outset. I'm not surprised. You're not doing at all well here. I'll be interested to see how you deal with Parados. How long before you start sneering at him?


You made no case. You claiming that I am dishonest without statement or recourse is like a kid in a playground claiming you bagsed the swing first. Peurile to the max. As for the "sneering tone". Quote me, Setanta. I never intended to insult you, or anyone here. Not sure how you grasped these straws, but that's your call entirely. Must really suck being so reactive.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 10:20 am
@Builder,
It's not reactive (another attempt to insult), it's nothing to do with the playground (another attempt to insult), it's not puerile (yet another attempt to insult)--it's just descriptive. I am claiming you are dishonest because you are saying that you did not intend to insult, after i've listed several of your insulting remarks. Your denials are absurd. Anyone with a lick of sense can see what you were up to. Too bad for you that it didn't work. As i've already said several times, you have a burden of proof. You haven't met it. Continuing to attempt to portray me in an insulting manner won't change that. You've got nothing going for you here.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 10:21 am
Do you intend to answer Parados, or has he already cornered you in a place in which you cannot reasonably respond?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 10:26 am
@Builder,
These were meant to be complimentary or neutral in tone?

Quote:


Get off your high horse and read some.



Quote:


Even these ones (your posts) where the spittle is flying all over your keyboard.


No wonder you have a hard time coming up with facts to defend your extraordinary claims.
(You can believe that statement was complimentary if you want. It wasn't intended as such nor would normal people read it as being in that tone.)
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 10:28 am
@parados,
Re: Builder (Post 4733549)
Quote:
For it to NOT be an extraordinary claim that no airliner hit the Pentagon, you need to address the following:

1. Why did numerous eye witnesses see a plane go overhead at low altitude before the Pentagon was hit?
2. Why were plane parts found at the Pentagon including parts of a 757?
3. What happened to the airplane and the people on it if they did not hit the Pentagon.


A plane did fly overhead, and numerous witnesses saw that plane.

Plane parts from another plane were placed in on the lawn outside the Pentagon. A jetliner travelling at 600 knots would not leave parts scattered on the lawn. It would leave twin gouge tracks where both propulsion units would have scoured the earth prior to impact, but no tracks were evident, and no impact zones were found for the heaviest and most indestructable units attached to the fabled plane.

What happened to the people? Vapourised?? Not likely. Not even possible.

Next question?
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 10:54 am
@Builder,
But you haven't addressed all of the issues in a complete manner.

If parts from another plane were placed on the lawn, how was that done without anyone noticing? How was the debris from 757 plane parts integrated in to the parts that were already there without making it obvious in photos? Why is it possible to attribute EVERY part found as being part of a 757? Why would they put luggage on this other plane?

It is an EXTRAORDINARY claim that parts were placed there after the fact. Please provide evidence to support that claim.

You failed to address the fact that many plane parts were found INSIDE the Pentagon. You only addressed parts on the lawn. You didn't provide enough support for your initial extraordinary claim.

You failed to address the fact that if the plane HIT the lawn then it would likely have left debris on the lawn making your statement contradictory.

Because you don't have a picture of any gouge doesn't mean it does not exist.
The lack of pictures of lawn gouges in pictures is addressed here.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

Quote:
no impact zones were found for the heaviest and most indestructable units attached to the fabled plane.
Which parts are you referring to?
Do you purposely ignore evidence?
Quote:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.


Builder
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 10:57 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
It's not reactive (another attempt to insult), it's nothing to do with the playground (another attempt to insult), it's not puerile (yet another attempt to insult)--it's just descriptive. I am claiming you are dishonest because you are saying that you did not intend to insult, after i've listed several of your insulting remarks. Your denials are absurd. Anyone with a lick of sense can see what you were up to. Too bad for you that it didn't work. As i've already said several times, you have a burden of proof. You haven't met it. Continuing to attempt to portray me in an insulting manner won't change that. You've got nothing going for you here.


So let me get this straight here. You're not reactive, right? I getcha.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 11:00 am
@Builder,
No more than you are. You have a burden of proof--you've not met it. Do you intend to?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2011 11:03 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Furthermore, you're now attempting dodge your earlier bullshit in which you described the 911 Commission as a "rushed investigation."


Quote:
Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission – Former 17-term Congressman from Indiana. Former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Currently President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and serves as a member of the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council.


CBC video interview transcript regarding Without Precedent a book about the 9/11 Commission authored by Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton 8/21/06:

Lee Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. ... People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.

Evan Solomon: The first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' ... Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: ... we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it. ...

We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. ...

Solomon: I guess the question is, you know, if forty odd million dollars were spent investigating President Bill Clinton’s sexual infidelities, why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission [to begin its work] that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year [to complete the investigation]?

Hamilton: I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault' ..."

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero - Discussion by Phoenix32890
9/11/01: Mary Pope and Eurodiva - Discussion by Miller
Thank you Israel. Great job! - Question by oralloy
Lights over Manhattan. - Discussion by Frank Apisa
The truth about what really happened in the USA - Discussion by reasoning logic
9/11 - Discussion by Brandon9000
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/01/2025 at 10:50:49